Securitization Workshop for Attorneys March 19th 2011 in San Francisco

Securitization Workshop for Attorneys March 19th 2011 in San Francisco

By Daniel Edstrom

Join us for our 3rd Securitization Workshop for Attorneys being held in San Francisco on March 19th, 2011.  Visit the event website for more information: http://securedocumentresearch.eventbrite.com

This workshop has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) by the State Bar of California.  Total credit hours approved are 6.75 hours.

Description of event:

SECURITIZATION WORKSHOP FOR ATTORNEYS
March 19th, 2011 – in San Francisco, CALIFORNIA

Continue reading “Securitization Workshop for Attorneys March 19th 2011 in San Francisco”

MERS has no agency – New York Bankruptcy Court: in re Agard

The following is a New York Bankruptcy motion for relief from stay ruling from February 10th, 2011

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

—————————————————————–x

In re:

Case No. 810-77338-reg

FERREL L. AGARD,

Chapter 7

Debtor.

—————————————————————–x

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Before the Court is a motion (the “Motion”) seeking relief from the automatic stay

pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2), to foreclose on a secured interest in the Debtor’s real

property located in Westbury, New York (the “Property”). The movant is Select Portfolio

Servicing, Inc. (“Select Portfolio” or “Movant”), as servicer for U.S. Bank National Association,

as Trustee for First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FF12, Mortgage Pass-Through

Certificates, Series 2006-FF12 (“U.S. Bank”). The Debtor filed limited opposition to the Motion

contesting the Movant’s standing to seek relief from stay. The Debtor argues that the only

interest U.S. Bank holds in the underlying mortgage was received by way of an assignment from

the Mortgage Electronic Registration System a/k/a MERS, as a “nominee” for the original

lender. The Debtor’s argument raises a fundamental question as to whether MERS had the legal

authority to assign a valid and enforceable interest in the subject mortgage. Because U.S. Bank’s

rights can be no greater than the rights as transferred by its assignor – MERS – the Debtor argues

that the Movant, acting on behalf of U.S. Bank, has failed to establish that it holds an

enforceable right against the Property.1 The Movant’s initial response to the Debtor’s opposition was that

MERS’s authority to assign the mortgage to U.S. Bank is derived from the mortgage itself which

allegedly grants to MERS its status as both “nominee” of the mortgagee and “mortgagee of

record.” The Movant later supplemented its papers taking the position that U.S. Bank is a

creditor with standing to seek relief from stay by virtue of a judgment of foreclosure and sale

entered in its favor by the state court prior to the filing of the bankruptcy. The Movant argues

that the judgment of foreclosure is a final adjudication as to U.S. Bank’s status as a secured

creditor and therefore the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits this Court from looking behind the

judgment and questioning whether U.S. Bank has proper standing before this Court by virtue of a

valid assignment of the mortgage from MERS.
Continue reading “MERS has no agency – New York Bankruptcy Court: in re Agard”

Irreconcilable Differences… I want a Mortgage Divorce!

Irreconcilable Differences… I want a Mortgage Divorce!

By James Macklin
Secure Document Research

Promissory Note Terms Vs. PSA/Prosectus Terms

When we are handed a voluminous stack of documents at the closing table for our mortgage transaction, a Borrower is expected to make a decision based upon the duty and care that the party who drafted these “investment contracts” has placed into them. However, none of us at the closing table has any idea what most of the words, phrases, and legal terminologies actually means… especially those affecting our rights as a consumer and as a real property owner.
Within the typical language of a Pooling and Servicing Agreement executed by the players of the securitization financing, there are countless references to the “interests” of the asset being conveyed, or, your Note and Deed. Interests are a finicky word of art used. The word simply means this: the asset, along with all of its’ benefits and liabilities. These are the “interests” being conveyed with the sale, set-over, transfer, conveyance, etc. So, under the terms of the Note we signed, look to the section titled: “Who is obligated under the Note” (usually sec. nine (9)). Here you will find that myriad entities may be, and probably are, also obligated under this same Note. These are the terms you have agreed to and bargained for. But the banking intermediaries would have us believe otherwise, as exhibited in the PSA under such language as: “The Depositor, Sponsor/Seller, Swap Counterparty, Master Servicer, Trustee do not intend for any obligation of themselves or their agents or employees to arise as a result of this Agreement”. This is contradictive to the terms and conditions that we have agreed to. Because the intervening assignments are a functional necessity to the bankruptcy remoteness of these assets, the specific substance of the PSA must be followed, including the mandate for the indorsement of each intervening assignment, along with the recordation of those assignment in the proper land title records office within the State of jurisdiction.
Let’s go back to the language of the “Who is Obligated” section of our Note. Notice that anyone who endorses the instrument is also obligated under the Note. Does this create an unknown Obligor at closing? If an un-named Beneficiary is the result of the unilateral agreement known as a Promissory Note”, how do we have the understanding necessary to execute such a critical document? It is the contention of this author, supported by the very agreements signed under oath and filed for record with the SEC, that “interests” and “obligations” are synonomous within the four corners of the agreement we signed…and the agreements signed by the intermediaries. A court of competent jurisdiction shall be posed these foundational questions very soon, and often. Are we a party to these agreements known as PSA/Prospectus? If we do a simple word search on each of these and look for references to: Borrower, Mortgagor, Obligor, we find these terms are typically used in excess of 60-75 times. Yet we were never disclosed the terms and conditions of the actual “loan” transaction as it truly was executed, and the rights, duties and responsibilities of the intermediaries. These are material disclosures relative to fees, expenses and various credit enhancements which are attributed to the Borrowers’ payment stream.
A divorce from this menagerie of deceit is not only appropriate, but a right that is being tried in many courtrooms. I believe that the judiciary will be tested on many platforms and small but visceral victories shall carry the day.

The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 1

The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 1

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

New Note added on 1/22/2012 thanks to Simonee.  California Probate Code does not seem to apply based on this California Supreme Court decision: Monterey S.P. Partnership v. W. L. Bangham, Inc. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 454 , 261 Cal.Rptr. 587; 777 P.2d 623 (download here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Monterey_SP_Partnership_vs_WL_Bangham.pdf)

Monterey S.P. Partnership v. W. L. Bangham, Inc. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 454 , 261 Cal.Rptr. 587; 777 P.2d 623

Here is a quick overview of what happens in a non-judicial foreclosure.  If you are in a judicial state, this post does not apply directly to your case.  But if you understand what happens in a non-judicial foreclosure, you may get insight into what might apply to your case.

I am not indicating that any of these documents are true or accurate, just that this is what typically happens.

Closing the Transaction

The homeowner executes a note and security instrument (i.e. Deed of Trust).  The parties to the trust created by the Deed of Trust are the trustor (homeowner), trustee (usually a title company) and the beneficiary (either MERS or the named lender).    Everyone seems to assume that the trust was constituted (created), that it is valid and continuing.  This is where the trouble begins (not really, but for this article we will assume it begins here and not before).

Notice of Default

Supposedly the Notice of Default is recorded and sent to the homeowner by the agent for the beneficiary.  Who is the beneficiary?  Looking at my notice of default the only beneficiary mentioned is MERS.  However, other documents sent usually point to one or more other parties who “might” be a beneficiary.

Continue reading “The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 1”

NEW GRANDMA IN CALIFORNIA DOES SLEUTHING AND DISCOVERS MAJOR ROBO NOTARY VIOLATIONS

NEW GRANDMA IN CALIFORNIA DOES SLEUTHING AND DISCOVERS MAJOR ROBO NOTARY VIOLATIONS WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR HOMEOWNER-BORROWERS, INVESTORS AND MAJOR BANKING & INVESTMENT FIRMS.  IS THERE IRS TAX EVASION ON THE PART OF BANKS & INVESTMENT FIRMS?

By Anita Carr
©carra2011

Anita Carr is used to discovering fraudulent activities, even when she is not employed.  In 2001 she discovered accounting irregularities at a Fortune 500 where she was a Director in Information Technology.  This led to investor lawsuits against that company for accounting fraud and insider trading.  At a prior employer she contacted the FBI and worked with them to ensure they investigated Medicare Fraud.  The CFO of that company went to prison.

Now, in fighting to determine title on her home, she has discovered something even more slimy and with much broader implications.  In an attempt to validate a ‘squiggle’ type mark on a recorded document with the Alameda County Recorder’s office, Ms. Carr felt it imperative that she obtain a copy of the page from the notarial journal from the California notary who performed the notarization of the ‘Corporation Deed of Assignment’ related to her property.

Ms. Carr, under California laws, is entitled to purchase a copy of the page in the notarial journal related to her property and so she wrote to the Orange County Recorder’s office and sent a check to cover the copy fees.  Orange County is where the notary was registered.  Within weeks she received a certified letter back from the Orange County recorder stating that they should have the notarial journal, but they did not have it.  See, once a notary is no longer a notary in California, it is the law that they must turn in their notarial journal to the county recorder.

Continue reading “NEW GRANDMA IN CALIFORNIA DOES SLEUTHING AND DISCOVERS MAJOR ROBO NOTARY VIOLATIONS”

Securitization Workshop for Attorneys January 29th 2011 in Los Angeles

Securitization Workshop for Attorneys January 29th 2011 in Los Angeles

By Daniel Edstrom

Join us for our 2nd Securitization Workshop for Attorneys being held in Los Angeles on January 29th, 2011.  Visit the event webiste for more information: http://securedocumentresearch.eventbrite.com and visit our product page for a super early registration price if you sign up by December 31, 2010: http://dtc-systems.net/products/securitization-workshop-attorneys-los-angeles-ca-january-29th-2011/

Description of event:

SECURITIZATION WORKSHOP FOR ATTORNEYS
 January 29th, 2010 – in Los Angeles, CALIFORNIA

 [Location will be determined soon]

SECURE DOCUMENT RESEARCH

Auburn, CA 95603; ph: 530.888.9600

DTC Systems, Inc.

[email protected]://www.dtc-systems.net

 Presented by:

Secure Document Research and DTC Systems, Inc.in Association with the Garfield Continuum and Neil F. Garfield, Esq.
http://livinglies.wordpress.com
REGISTER EARLY, LIMITED SEATING IS AVAILABLE

Continue reading “Securitization Workshop for Attorneys January 29th 2011 in Los Angeles”

Understanding the Governing Documents 1

Understanding the Governing Documents 1

by Daniel Edstrom

Wall Street financial engineering is a thing to behold.  Of course most of it is in complex legal terms difficult to comprehend.  Let’s take a look at a few definitions in a Prospectus Supplement and break them down.  This is from the RASC Series 2005-EMX4 Trust put out by GMAC.

Subordination. So long as the Class M Certificates remain outstanding, losses on the mortgage loans which are not covered by amounts payable under excess cash flow or overcollateralization will be allocated to the Class M Certificates that remain outstanding with the lowest payment priority, and the other classes of certificates will not bear any portion of such losses. If none of the Class M Certificates are outstanding, all such losses will be allocated to the Class A Certificates as described in this prospectus supplement.

What this means: Numerous classes of certificates are issued.  In this trust the Class A certificates are paid in priority first while any losses first come out of the Class M certificates.  Once the Class A certificates principal is paid in full, the principal is applied to the Class M certificates.  Once the Class M certificates absorb all losses and the principal is reduced to zero, the Class A certificates will suffer losses.  The diagram to the left shows what this looks like.  Is there a loss?  Only if the loss is not covered by “amounts payable under excess cash flow” or “overcollateralization.”

DEBT SERVICE REDUCTION–Modifications of the terms of a mortgage loan resulting from a bankruptcy proceeding, including a reduction in the amount of the monthly payment on the related mortgage loan, but not any permanent forgiveness of principal.

What this means: A reduction in the monthly payment based on a bankruptcy ruling but not including any permanent principal forgiveness.  This doesn’t mean much at the moment but we will revisit this shortly.

Realized Loss–As to any defaulted mortgage loan that is finally liquidated the portion of the Stated Principal Balance plus accrued and unpaid interest remaining after application of all amounts recovered, net of amounts reimbursable to the master servicer for related Advances, Servicing Advances and other expenses, towards interest and principal owing on the mortgage loan. For a mortgage loan the principal balance of which has been reduced in connection with bankruptcy proceedings, the amount of the reduction. As to any mortgage loan that has been the subject of a Debt Service Reduction, the amount of the reduction. For a mortgage loan that has been modified, following a default or if a default was reasonably foreseeable, the amount of principal that has been forgiven, the amount by which a monthly payment has been reduced due to a reduction of the interest rate, and any Servicing Advances that are forgiven and reimbursable to the master servicer or servicer. To the extent the master servicer receives Subsequent Recoveries with respect to any mortgage loan, the amount of the Realized Loss with respect to that mortgage loan will be reduced to the extent such recoveries are received.

What this means: This is part of the Wall Street engineering genius that is difficult to understand.  Basically what it is saying is that despite what you might believe,  despite what a judge rules in bankruptcy, and despite the fact that a loan modification has been applied to a loan, the investors receive the original payment of principal and interest.  Even after a ruling by a standing bankruptcy judge the investors receive the original principal and interest based upon the original note (or at least the copy of the note allegedly pooled into the trust).  One can only imagine the book-keeping nightmares that servicers face keeping multiple sets of books and trying to keep them all straight.  This is my best guess as to why the servicers have such a hard time keeping the accounting straight for those in bankruptcy.  Just ask O. Max Gardner III how often the servicers mess up bankruptcy rulings.

Read all of the above again.  Even if the principal and interest payment are reduced in bankruptcy, the servicer is required to advance the principal and interest of the original mortgage loan as amortized.  Once the loan is liquidated (paid off), the principal loss is calculated at that time and advances which have not been paid by other forms of credit enhancements are paid back to the advancing party.   THE INVESTORS GET THEIR MONEY during the course of the loan (whether or not paid by the homeowners), then it gets ripped out of their hands all at once when the loss is calculated.  But you never know for sure whether the investors will actually suffer a loss or if the credit enhancements will pay for it.  This is one of many reasons why the homeowner is entitled to a full accounting.

Bankruptcy judges be warned: Wall Street takes your rulings with a grain of salt and applies them in their own fashion.  This can only stem from multiple sets of books that are concealed, misrepresented and not disclosed to the courts.

Disclaimer Reminder:  This is a blog for educational and informational use only and does not constitute legal advice.  Take no action without first consulting an attorney in your jurisdiction.

Patt Morrison on Southern California Public Radio

Patt Morrison on Southern California Public Radio

Listen to the recorded version of the Patt Morrison’s show on scpr.org

http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2010/12/14/who-really-owns-your-housecould-mortgage-transfers/

Guests:

Katherine Porter, visiting professor of bankruptcy, consumer finance & secured credit at the Harvard Law School

Daniel Edstrom, head of the securitization auditing firm DTC-Systems

Securitization issues related to foreclosures and paperwork is discussed.

Katherine Porter states that Wrongful foreclosure is when the house is foreclosed on and there  is no default.  This is an interesting definition because in nearly all cases in securitization, the loans are current.  The obligation is not in default because the Securitization Trustee and the investors have received all payments.  So nearly all Securitization foreclosures are wrongful foreclosures?  That is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to look at.

Why are the loans current in securitization?  Because the servicers and securitization trustees are required and obligated to make the payments whether or not they receive the payment from the homeowner.

BofA Mortgage Morass Deepens on Promissory Notes Issues

BofA Mortgage Morass Deepens on Promissory Notes Issues

By Prashant Gopal and Jody Shenn – Nov 30, 2010

Testimony by a Bank of America Corp. employee in a New Jersey personal bankruptcy case may give more ammunition to homeowners and investors in their legal battles over defaulted mortgages.

Linda DeMartini, a team leader in the company’s mortgage- litigation management division, said during a U.S. Bankruptcy Court hearing in Camden last year that it was routine for the lender to keep mortgage promissory notes even after loans were bundled by the thousands into bonds and sold to investors, according to a transcript. Contracts for such securitizations usually require the documents to be transferred to the trustee for mortgage bondholders.

In the case, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith H. Wizmur on Nov. 16 rejected a claim on the home of John T. Kemp, ruling his mortgage company, now owned by Bank of America, had failed to deliver the note to the trustee. That could leave the trustee with no standing to take the property, and raises the question of whether other foreclosures could similarly be blocked.

Following the decision, the bank disavowed the statements by DeMartini, whom it had flown in from California to testify. It was the policy of Countrywide Financial Corp., acquired by Bank of America in July 2008, to deliver notes as called for in its securitization contracts, according to Larry Platt, an attorney at K&L Gates LLP in Washington designated by the bank to answer questions about the case. Continue reading “BofA Mortgage Morass Deepens on Promissory Notes Issues”

Split: The Note and the Deed of Trust (Redux)

The Note and Mortgage are split in judicial states the same as the Note and Deed of Trust in non-judicial states.

Split: The Note and the Deed of Trust (Redux)

by Daniel Edstrom

The Note and Mortgage are split in judicial states the same as the Note and Deed of Trust in non-judicial states.

The first issue is that the note was sold in 2005 but the Deed of Trust appears to have been left behind.  For the uninitiated, if the Note and Deed of Trust are split, this causes a nullity.  A nullity means the security interest is lost and the debt becomes unsecured.  In securitization this is standard operating procedure and is one of the issues that we are left to face.  Upwards of 60,000,000 homes may be unencumbered leaving those who own the notes on these houses with no power of sale.  And more considering MERS wasn’t the only party involved in splitting the note from the security instrument.

Who owns these loans if they are unsecured?  That was the whole purpose of creating the securitization diagram in the first place.

The result?  More questions, few answers. Continue reading “Split: The Note and the Deed of Trust (Redux)”